Ken Ham - Richard Dawkins is not an atheist

dr.fuzzenstein

ShooterSF wrote: »

That doesn't make sense unless you are using the word believe in terms of support or following rather than to believe something exists. You can't know something exists and yet chose not to believe it exists. You can't even really chose in the first place, I suppose you could go into denial about it...

Hence the phrase 'believe in god' vs 'believe in gods existence'.

dr.fuzzenstein

“No it's not!" said Constable Visit. "Atheism is a denial of a god."

"Therefore It Is A Religious Position," said Dorfl. "Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.”
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay

MrPudding

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.
Donald Rumsfeld

Not a Rumsfeld fan, but I loved that speech. It got a lot of stick, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

dr.fuzzenstein

MrPudding wrote: »

Not a Rumsfeld fan, but I loved that speech. It got a lot of stick, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

It rightfully got a lot of stick, it was baloney.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

makes perfect sense to me...

nozzferrahhtoo

I think after all the years I have been on this site and others like it (isgodimaginary.comm city data, politics, atheist.ie, and many more) I am just a little tired of how many useful and interesting threads get derailed into the different meanings of atheist agnostic antitheist gnostic and "I do not want to define myself on your terms" and so forth.

I would love to just settle it with having a "hunger games" where we stick 24 people into a ring and the winner comes out

So I think I will start this narrative and see where (if) it goes...........

Alas with his aversion to meat and alcohol Nugent would be the first to die in the "not quite theist" games. Unless a sudden need for football knowledge was required. At which point Scott Atran would show up to tell us that all muslim extremism is not based in Islamic beliefs but in people joining the wrong soccer team. At which point "Sylar" style from "heroes" he would cut Nugents throat and absorb all his Football knowledge.

Then he moves to finally face down Sam Harris who is not quite convinced any of this has anything to do with soccer..... and has everything to do with how much beliefs matter..... and that the solution to any problem.... as with "the moral landscape".... is always to sit down and reason out what the "worst" and "best" case scenario is...... so that everyone can just "get alone" discussing how best to move between these two new points......

..... <next poster continue the narrative here>

robdonn

... From out of the bushes come Bill Maher, swinging wildly at the others for using paint brushes that are too small, and then dying unexpectedly as a result of refusing to get the necessary vaccinations....

Michael Nugent

...Nugent, taking advantage of earlier cultural references from more innocent days, returns in a shower scene as it is revealed that his death and everything subsequent to that was a dream.

He quickly acknowledges the conflict of interest of writing his own resurrection into the script, but makes clear that he will repeat it if any other scriptwriters kill him again.

Bill Maher insists that nobody needs vaccines, so the tribal elders lock him in a cell filled with deadly viruses that he is not vaccinated against. One is the faith virus, which soon engulfs him.

Maher escapes from his cell, rushing towards the assembled atheists, screaming in a high pitched voice and slashing wildly around him with the giant electric fishbone power saw from Fist of Jesus.

As a mass slaughter of the faithless seems inevitable, there is a faint squeak from the background. It is PZ Myers, from a safe distance, calling all of the other atheists misogynistic scumbags.

Christopher Hitchens then returns from the world of spirits, also taking advantage of the less-than-credible dream method. He glares in the general direction of PZ Myers, who runs away.

Hitchens then turns to face the oncoming Bill Maher…

robdonn

... breaking the flow for a second ...

Michael Nugent wrote: »

...Nugent, taking advantage of earlier cultural references from more innocent days, returns in a shower scene as it is revealed that his death and everything subsequent to that was a dream.

LOL!

Now, resume...

dr.fuzzenstein

you can call me what you want as long as you don't call me late for dinner.

stevejazzx

MrPudding wrote: »

Not a Rumsfeld fan, but I loved that speech. It got a lot of stick, but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Wasn't it about intelligence gathering tough and possibly, although could be wrong here, this was part of his testimony to senate in relation to the Bush administrations advance warning of 911 attacks (issued by I think both Australia and Russia) - in which case this reply was just a suave way of muddying the waters about known intelligence and what to do with it.

But I agree - in a purely philosophical format it works although and I can't help but feel the quote is essentially plagiarized from somewhere....

MrPudding

stevejazzx wrote: »

Wasn't it about intelligence gathering tough and possibly, although could be wrong here, this was part of his testimony to senate in relation to the Bush administrations advance warning of 911 attacks (issued by I think both Australia and Russia) - in which case this reply was just a suave way of muddying the waters about known intelligence and what to do with it.

But I agree - in a purely philosophical format it works although and I can't help but fell the quote is essentially plagiarized from somewhere....

To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

MrP

dr.fuzzenstein

MrPudding wrote: »

To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

MrP

I makes sense in a "water is wet, the sky is blue and the dog goes woof" kind of way.
He was just doing what the Bush administration did at the time, stood in front of a mic, make noises and hope people would fall for it.

robdonn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I makes sense in a "water is wet, the sky is blue and the dog goes woof" kind of way.

But, what does the fox say?

dr.fuzzenstein

robdonn wrote: »

But, what does the fox say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jofNR_WkoCE

;)

BlaasForRafa

MrPudding wrote: »

To be honest, I don't even remember what context it was in. All I recall is loads of people calling it non-sensical, when it actually made perfect sense.

MrP

It was a speech worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby himself!

Hotblack Desiato

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It was a speech worthy of Sir Humphrey Appleby himself!

I fear you entirely misunderstand the motives of both Rumsfeld and Sir Appleby. Rummy sways with the wind of his intellectually deficient political master windbag; Appleby represents the opposite, the maintenance of enduring values* in spite of the changeable political weather.



* just so happens these values are public school, old Tory...

BlaasForRafa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I fear you entirely misunderstand the motives of both Rumsfeld and Sir Appleby. Rummy sways with the wind of his intellectually deficient political master windbag; Appleby represents the opposite, the maintenance of enduring values* in spite of the changeable political weather.



* just so happens these values are public school, old Tory...

I was talking about the style, not the motives or intent.

J C

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

you can call me what you want as long as you don't call me late for dinner.

... or too early in the morning, after a hard day's night!!!!:)

Anyway, has it been settled whether Prof Dawkins is an Atheist or not?
I'm confused after reading this thread.

Is an 'average' Atheist actually 99% Atheist and 1% Theist ... or perhaps, a significantly higher % Theist, if caught in a 'foxhole' with serious levels of incoming flak ?

dr.fuzzenstein

J C wrote: »

... or too early in the morning, after a hard day's night!!!!:)

Anyway, has it been settled whether Prof Dawkins is an Atheist or not?
I'm confused after reading this thread.

Is an 'average' Atheist actually 99% Atheist and 1% Theist ... or perhaps, a significantly higher % Theist, if caught in a 'foxhole' with serious levels of incoming flak ?

The problem is not being an atheist or being a theist.
Both are nice, safe options. You know where you are with both of them. Yes or no, black or white. If you really want to bring down a sh*tstorm on yourself, just say you're an agnostic. The bisexuals of the faith world. They get flak from all sides.

Samaris

You know, the really crazy thing is that back when geology was in its infancy, -no-one- actually took Usher's ideas on the Earth being 4000 years old seriously. Really, they didn't. That whole thing is a fallacy that we tend to believe because hey, people back then were dumber than us because they didn't have so much information available!

Sadly, the present-day people tend to be dumber than the ones back then in some regards.

J C

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The problem is not being an atheist or being a theist.
Both are nice, safe options. You know where you are with both of them. Yes or no, black or white. If you really want to bring down a sh*tstorm on yourself, just say you're an agnostic. The bisexuals of the faith world. They get flak from all sides.

... are all (or nearly all) Atheists technically Agnostics, then (because of the varying levels of doubt that they have about the non-existence of God)?

It also strikes me that some Atheists primarily define themselves on what they are against in Theism ... and therefore could be described as anti-theists, perhaps??

J C

Samaris wrote: »

You know, the really crazy thing is that back when geology was in its infancy, -no-one- actually took Usher's ideas on the Earth being 4000 years old seriously. Really, they didn't. That whole thing is a fallacy that we tend to believe because hey, people back then were dumber than us because they didn't have so much information available!

Sadly, the present-day people tend to be dumber than the ones back then in some regards.

Very true, in many respects ... but belonging to a different thread IMO.

Samaris

J C wrote: »

Very true, in many respects ... but belonging to a different thread IMO.

Oh, it was in reference to some stuff about strongly conservative Creationists and Young Earth believers somewhere in the thread.

I guess it's also possible that every religion has always had its kooks, but we just don't hear about them because at the time, they didn't have their voices heard all the time over the internet/media.

J C

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, it was in reference to some stuff about strongly conservative Creationists and Young Earth believers somewhere in the thread.

I guess it's also possible that every religion has always had its kooks, but we just don't hear about them because at the time, they didn't have their voices heard all the time over the internet/media.

Like I have said, different OP different thread.

Samaris

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, different OP different thread.

..Yep, I read back through the thread and you're completely right. /cough